Prosecutors in the entertainment industry versus The Pirate Bay trial have made further amendments to the charge sheet in the hope of nailing a conviction against the defendants. According to Swedish online news service The Local, prosecutors have once again adjusted the language in the indictment. It requested that the …
...the charges to be changed to.
"They've done something clever with computers and the global-internets-zone-web, we don't understand it, but we know we don't like it."
But they keep changing the goal posts?
Really, if this were any other trial, the judge would have thrown it out and told the lawyer to come back when he could tell his arsehole from his elbow.
Soon the charge sheet will read, "Pissing off Big Content", and that will be that, they will be found guilty.
Personally I think they will walk, and I'll be quite happy when they do. Dont get me wrong - I pay for all of my games and movies - I just side ideologically more with the Pirate Bay than the IFPI. The IFPI wants to use legislation to keep its outdated business model going, and uses bribery and coercion to achieve its goals.
Surely they can't keep on doing that?
The PB's legal team should be looking to have the whole thing thrown out if the persecution, sorry, prosecution can't even decide on what they're being accused of.
FFS, any Judge, in any country, should be able to see this for the utter national embarrassment it's becoming and be throwing it out anyway.
They just look like a bunch of twats now.
.. .move the goalposts before we score an own goal!
The farce that is the Pirate Bay prosecution lurches again.
When will the media industry get down off the wall and realise that if you can't beat them, then you may as well join them?
in a case dependent of the intracity of bit torrent I can not believe the best they could find to give eve dance was someone who did not know how torrents worked Hurley they could have found another hi up person who DID understand how torrents worked?
It does seem odd
To take them to court on one set of charges and then change them during the trial.
"I'm sorry M'lud but can we change the charge of GBH to one of performing a light slap and being a naughty boy"
All very odd.
if you go to goggle and type in Coldplay torrent (as TPB only searches through torrents that is a more fair comparision) you get a lot of torrents downloading what you want
Weak Google-fu there mate
The term you want is "Coldplay torrent" (no quotes...)
800,000 results in a tenth of a second.
Many of them allowing you to download dreadful dirges...
Type in "Coldplay torrent" and you get 800,000 hits to torrents.. 800 times more than the Pirate Bay!
Definitely time to go after Google, you pussies..
...if you go to google and type "coldplay torrent" you get 700,000+ results, with at least the first couple of pages linking to various torrent sites... Oddly enough TPB isn't in the first couple of pages.
I think it will eventually come down to
"They're witches, WITCHES I tell you... They turned me into a newt! (I got better)"
It's like a bloody funny legal system that lets prosecutors constantly amend the indictment during the trial in order to make securing a conviction easier.
Charges get dropped all the time - but actually adding stuff to the charge sheet mid-trial...?!
Some people concerned with due process (and other such matters that long since bit the dust in the UK) might feel that if the prosecution can't get its act together in the months during which it was preparing its case (and particularly given all the resources at its disposal), their lawyers should be laughed out of court for ineptitude.
I take exception
to 'they filter fake material' - certainly if I ever used it in the past, I would assume (or so my friend told me) that fake torrents appeared all the time.
Google versus TPB
You can just as easily find illegal material using Google. Just do a search on something slightly more specific (say, for example, "coldplay torrent"), and at least 10 pages of torrent links will come up.
If I were in the habit of downloading such stuff (not that I would, of course, but AC just in case), I'd find it far easier to find torrents this way than to search using TPB or any other torrent site.
Paris, because she must be more knowledgeable about torrent technology than John Kennedy.
If TPB do lose I will be very happy to send them a donation. Sure, it may not entirely compensate them for any in-shower-soap-retrieval distress they may suffer, but might help a little.
If the big fat greedy we-don't-quite-understand-torrents-but-we're-going-to-sue-you-anyway conglomerates win I shall feel rather less inclined to part with my hard-owned.
Paris...because she'd be welcome to continually change her demands with me.
Reading some of Peter Sunde's 'brokep' twitter enteries they seem to be having great fun while the trial runs.
Is it that much of a stretch...
to type "Coldplay torrent" into Google?
There, you get 785K results - pretty much entirely torrents of Coldplay albums I'm sure.
Google should be next in the dock...
What's that noi..........<no carrier>
The thing is...
It's been said before on comments, it's been said in the article.. if they want to crush piracy.. they'll have to crush the technology behind google.. and that isn't going to happen...
As well as others.. I pay for my stuff, but I really hope to see the Pirate bay come out of this, the music industry has been whining about this for too long.
IFPI are big fat doo doo heads.
Nothing constructive to say really. In a simialr vein to the doo doo head on the stand.
Maybe they should employ the defendants to teach them how this new fangled stuff works. Then employ some other people who aren't decrepid to figure out a way of using this for their own advantages. But that not the Doo Doo Head way.
Paris 'cos she feels the pain of a Doo Doo Head.
Quote of the day
"He said the IFPI had spent around £75m on its global fight against piracy."
Yeah? How did that work out for you?
Should have given the money to the artists who allegedly lost money through piracy, although I've yet to see any figures on that.
This changing of the goalposts approach to getting a conviction reminds me of The Untouchables, where they decide to get Capone for tax evasion instead.
1) I was always under the impression that the prosecuting lawyers had to do their work _before_ the case and come to court with everything prepared. I understand that things change and new 'evidence' comes to light, but this should all have been sorted out beforehand. This changing of the charges stinks of a fishing expedition.
2) I just googled "coldplay bittorrent" and got about 345,000 hits. So if TPB would have retured 1,000 and Google 345,000 then perhaps Google is about 300 times as guilty of whatever TPB is guilty of.
Paris because... WTF it's Wednesday.
Piracy will get everyone cheap movie and music downloads
Limewire and the Pirate Bay have forced ITunes to give everyone DRM free music downloads at a good bitrate with a price that is becoming sensible, it will also do this for movies. When the assholes that run that industry work out that if you can get a new movie rental every night from Lovefilm on DVD for £1 , it should be possible to do the same with a download that doesn't involve physical media or postage costs.
If we had listened to the music industry, compact cassette, the recordable CD and MP3 players would never have happened. The music industry would prefer to sell warped vinyl that autoscratches after the first play just like they always did make you buy the same thing over and over again and, in the UK, make you buy it for twice the price anyone else is paying.
It is the Pirate Bay that are the solution here. If the industry started pricing sensibly they could be making £1 per movie off of anyone who would ever be likely to pay every time they wanted to watch a movie and maybe 50p for a new single or maybe £3-£4 for a freshly released album.
Why are they too stupid to see it?
Paris, because she's had one of her movies downloaded free by a lot of Pirate Bay users.
Swedish Justice ... an Open or Shut case
Is this a trial by jury ...... or a closed shop affair?
And moving the goalposts is novel. Does it all boil down to a malicious prosecution against the sharing of knowledge?
I wonder what that perversion will cost the System ........ although whenever it just prints what it needs, it really is just academic, unless the prosecution does time as touted for the defendants, which would also be novel, and not at all unfair some would say.
Actually, if you go on Google and search for the actual track you want, eg [coldplay track].mp3 you're fairly likely to find a useable download.
I know people who've downloaded their entire, albiet small, collection of mp3s this way, because they dont know how to use torrents or stuff like Kazaa, Limewire, etc.
Lets assume for a moment that Pirate Bay are telling the truth and they dont host stuff themselves or get cash out of it. They just link to other peoples illegal material. If they're found to be breaking the law, Google MUST also be guilty. After all, you can search Google for ebaumsworld, and thats full of pirated material.
The Boris Johnston gambit?
I'm puzzled by the seeming bumbling ineptness of the 'prosecution'. Unless perhaps it's a ploy to wrong-foot their opponents by seeming to be idiots as a cover for moving the goal posts at the last minute. After all, the defendants will presumably have prepared their case with regard to the original claim.
I agree with the poster above who points out that a competant judge ought to throw the case out if the complainant seems either so woefully unprepared or devious. Maybe the local legal system is more easy-going than in the UK?
Or is it:' ...He may look like an idiot, he may talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you - he really is an idiot...'
G Marx : Duck Soup.
Maybe the sentence
“All components are necessary for users of the service are able to share files with one another.”
was removed because it's not an English sentence?
Perhaps "All your files are belong to us" would be closer to the actual charge?
Coldplay Torrent = 800k?
800,000 results for Coldpaly torrent on google, the trial must be working, they must be cracking down, i only got 733,000 results returned... they must be making a dent... hahaha! can you say, fail!
They had to change the income tax legislation in the US to make paying your taxes (or not) a matter of criminal law, not civil, in order to nail Capone. And it remains so to this day.
It's much like NuLabour's strategy of passing so many vague, complex laws that everyone is guilty of *something*. Once the entire population is criminalized, voila! police state!
"Tell us the crimes you are guilty of, citizen."
"I was rude to my body thetans, ossifer."
And not just Google...
Live returns over 200k results, Yahoo returns 2.3m, Lycos 41k, Ask 196k...
I could go on. The only way they could prevent people searching for illegal content would be to outlaw any searchable database of web pages, since the alternative (making search providers legally liable for the results they return) would be unworkable. What part of "Don't shoot the messenger" don't they understand?
Besides which, since most record companies have generously provided free videos of music on YouTube, all you need is a copy of Audacity to do a high tech version of recording the song when it's played on the radio...
And the record companies didn't get very far in trying to ban radio cassette recorders, or even dual deck cassette recorders, or the "High speed dubbing" feature. So I can't imagine them getting very far if they took sound card manufacturers to court for providing "What I hear" functionality or line in jacks (the manual equivalent - sling a cable between Line Out and Line In).
Where there's a will to obtain music free-of-charge, there's inevitably a way.
Since when were Torrents illegal?
“provide the ability to others to upload and store torrent files to the service”
Er... Surely the actual torrents themselves are not illegal? There's no copyrighted materials there!
So it's now illegal to upload and store links? Uh-oh...
I'd be interested in seeing how they're going to paint this as illegal...
google, Live and yahoo
All of those have a better search at torrents then PBT do and yet none of them are in the case....maybe it should be "let's pick on the little guy"
Paris because when I googled her torrent I got Results 1 - 100 of about 1,890,000
You wanna buy DVD?
It's very easy to use google to find direct download links for mp3 (& other) files:
Quite a few of the returned links are 'fake' pages as the webmasters have cottoned on to the "index of" style searching people do, but real mp3s are out there...
How ya like me now?!
Home taping is killing music?
Wait till they get a load of me!
(To para-phrase Batman I think)
Only Vague Understanding of BitTorrent?
If they're spending all those millions on lawyers, you'd think they would get a clue on BitTorrent technology. Maybe even try it out a few times, use it to download RedHat Linux or something.
Thanks for the twit-er info. I normally steer clear of that place, but this is fun reading.
"We had some pizza after todays episode of #spectrial. Met the whole oposing [sic] side and asked if they could pick up the check. They refused :("
After reading more on this charade, I hope they counter sue. There has to be plenty of cause to do so.
"The PB's legal team should be looking to have the whole thing thrown out if the persecution, sorry, prosecution can't even decide on what they're being accused of."
Why would they do that? Once they've been tried for everything, they can't be tried again for anything. They're in no danger, and besides, they're enjoying it. So am I - best court case ever.
More newts please
Actually the reason why the media companies are going after TPB rather than google, is because google can afford better lawyers and judges than the media companies can.
Still I can see tommorrow's court record
<Judge> How do you plead?
<TPB> Not gulity...... to whatever is on today's charge sheet
How about trail by axe? the accused witch has his head placed on a block and an axe aimed at his neck
If he is guilty of being a witch, the axe will bounce off and then we burn him
changed to “provide the ability to others to upload and store torrent files to the service”
And surely that's not illegal. Because torrent files contain no actual copyrighted material. And trying to ban torrent files is like trying to ban flour or talcum powder because some drug dealers use it to cut up their cocaine -- ain't gonna happen, no way.
On another note, why haven't they tried going after, say, Rapidshare, someone who actually hosts illegal files?
"only understands bit torrent in vague terms"
... its not difficult to find out what it is and what its about (there is even a handy link on TPB home page), and given that you are taking people to court over it perhaps finding out would be considered good preparation?
Although given how terrible the prosecuting lawyers seem to be a lack of preparation from the man at the IPFI is not a surprise.
Last time I looked, they didn't give the impression of being impoverished.
You will not win
I remember reading an article that interviewed a software developer and a hacker regarding the MPAA's concern over DVDs and piracy. Their concern was that DVDs being un-encrypted would allow the movies to be more easily pirated and were demanding encryption. The osftware developer advised the MPAA to "just get over it" because their software had been sent back and forth across the Internet regardless of what they do to try to stop it. The hacker said something to the effect of "There are 16 million of us and one of you. Who do you think is gonna win?"
AC for obvious reasons...
It's not just what people say, but the way they're said to say it. John K isn't a bad guy, he's just a lawyer who's found himself a nice little honeypot. But since he doesn't speak Swedish, he needs an interpreter, and he has to be interpreted back into Swedish. Seems like they've found an interpreter who's lousy at the job. I could do better (and have...). So on top of getting ticked off by the defence and the judge for vague answers, JK has had to answer imaginary questions he got from the interpreter, and his answers have left everybody flummoxed.
As for Swedish justice, it's a bit reactionary but not usually as vicious as British injustice. And there's a panel of lay assessors to ask real questions and deflate some of the legal bombast. And they don't like being arsed around with. All this chopping and changing by the Pigopolists has made a very bad impression. The court doesn't like being made a laughing stock. The Law may be a Hass, but it doesn't like to see itself in the mirror.
Soon they'll have dropped all the charges about doing things and end up prosecuting the lads for things they've said that the Ps don't like. Which is basically what the PB crew have been saying all along.
(Paris cos she's a nice little honeypot and can by anywhere without an interpreter...)
An easier way to deal with this
Ban Coldplay. That way nobody will ever try and 'share' their music with the world, ever again.
I use the word share in the same way you might think of sharing the flu with someone. Or syphilis.
I like the Pirate Bay :-)
I use exclusively FOSS s/w so I'm not interested in the warez and I've got a Netflix subscription so I don't care about the movies & series however... I missed episode ten of 24 the other day as I couldn't find anywhere near me that sold vhs tapes. This simply won't do, especially as I pay $40 a month for basic cable here and that's the only show I watch with any regularity.
Well blow me down if our Swedish friends weren't tracking a torrent of it a mere 24 minutes after it aired! That's fair use and very good service in my book.
Thanks guys, good luck with the court case! :-)
Also, it's nice to know theres a publicly accessible tracker out there if you ever need to upload something big to lots of people.
"All components are necessary for users of the service are able to share files with one another"
Er, apart from Bit Torrent software.
at least they didn't turn you into a neut. doubt you would recover.
What does this mean?
“All components are necessary for users of the service are able to share files with one another.”"
I assume that it's supposed to say "All components are necessary for users of the service in order to be able to share files with one another." But what are they talking about? Context?
Or perhaps it's "All components are necessary. For users of the service are able to share files with one another." This doesn't make much sense to me either.
Now there's an idea. Not only outlaw the search engines to link to music. Also outlaw commercials for music on tv, outlaw display stands in shops, outlaw billboards announing so and so's new album. I would go so far as to outlaw playing music on the radio , tv, internet, anywhere.
It would only be legal to go and listen to live performances. That'll put the money back in the groups pockets.
I can't help but feel the IFPI are missing the point
Even if the TPB chaps get convicted and even if they get sent down and even if all the TPB servers are shut-down the key point is that it won't make a blind bit of difference to the availability of illegal downloads. Shutting down TPB won't remove the actual files. They will still be available.
So, why bother?
"... I can't imagine them getting very far if they took sound card manufacturers to court for providing "What I hear" functionality or line in jacks (the manual equivalent - sling a cable between Line Out and Line In)."
That's precisely what the new digital media interfaces (hdmi type things) are for. You can't license the tech unless you agree to implement DRM which switches off the line-out socket when the a flag is set in the content.
Just like DVD regions, it will all work until someone twigs that their hardware will become really popular if an unofficial but easy modification is made. I see an unexplained jumper or sloppily written driver being rather popular.
As to the article - yes, dropping charges is one thing, but widening the scope part-way through should cause it to be thrown out. However, perhaps the PB team want it to continue to get a decisive win. Perhaps the IFPI team thought a PR victory could be gained by prosecuting for infringement and ending up with a win, even if it was just for something minor.
Let's hope the Swedes show a bit of backbone and stick to their consumer-friendly ways. It isn't just about TBP, its about corporate control over the law.
A complete farce.
Copyright should be protected, but attacking a website - the actual people sharing just go somewhere else - the files still exist and get shared.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp